Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It does disclose key behavioral facts: return values and the important caveat that MOS is an objective estimate, not a perceptual measurement. However, it does not mention potential side effects such as whether test traffic is sent, or any access/rate limitations, leaving some behavioral uncertainty.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three sentences with no redundancy: the first states the core action and outputs, the second gives usage context, and the third adds a necessary caveat. Information is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given no output schema, the description adequately explains what will be returned and includes a relevant use case. The schema covers all parameter semantics. The only missing elements are explicit statements about side effects or prerequisites, but these are not critical for a moderate-complexity measurement tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for all three parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific details, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb ('Measure') and resource ('quality of a voice/VoIP path to a destination') and explicitly lists the outputs (MOS, RTT, jitter, packet loss). It is unambiguous and self-contained, with no confusion about what the tool does.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It clearly states when to use the tool: 'Useful before routing or starting a voice-agent call.' There are no alternative tools or exclusion cases, but the context is specific enough to guide an agent's decision.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.